The nation got a reading check-up in June, and the results split cleanly down the middle. The National Assessment of Educational Progress released its long-term trend results — a paper-and-pencil assessment given periodically since the 1970s, this round administered in 2024–25 to roughly 15,000 nine-year-olds and 16,400 thirteen-year-olds. Nine-year-olds have nearly recovered to pre-pandemic reading performance, and their lowest performers — the group that includes many unidentified children with dyslexia — actually grew. Thirteen-year-olds' reading scores, meanwhile, essentially match where they stood fifty years ago, and their strugglers are not bouncing back. For dyslexia families, the split is more useful than the headline: it shows where the system is starting to work, and who it is still leaving behind.
What exactly did the scores show?
The long-term trend assessment is NAEP's oldest yardstick, deliberately kept stable so today's students can be compared with students decades ago. At age 9, the news was genuinely good: performance close to pre-pandemic levels, with the federal testing agency's acting commissioner noting the results show "growth can happen again" — and, notably, the biggest gains coming from lower-performing students rather than only the top of the distribution. At age 13, the picture inverted. Scores sat essentially where they were in the 1970s, the recovery visible in younger students absent, and low performers declining rather than climbing. National Assessment Governing Board leaders said the results "raise important questions" about what's fueling improvement in the elementary grades and why it stops there.
Why would younger readers recover while teens stall?
Analysts offered several overlapping explanations. Today's 9-year-olds were barely in school during the pandemic's worst disruption; today's 13-year-olds spent formative early-elementary years in remote or interrupted instruction, and reading skills missed at 7 compound by 13. But the timing also coincides with something else: the wave of state science-of-reading laws that retrained elementary teachers and rebuilt early instruction over the past five years (our coverage of that shift). Early-grade classrooms are where that money and retraining landed first — and early grades are where recovery is showing. Middle school literacy instruction, by contrast, barely changed. There's also a culture-wide signal in the background data: only 37% of 9-year-olds say they read for fun daily, down from 53% in 2012.
What does this mean for children with dyslexia specifically?
Two things, and they point in different directions. First, the age-9 rebound — concentrated among low performers — is consistent with what happens when schools screen early and teach foundational skills explicitly. That's the system working the way dyslexia advocates have demanded for two decades, and it's a reason to defend screening and structured instruction where they exist. Second, the age-13 flatline is a warning about the students the wave arrived too late for. A struggling 13-year-old reader is disproportionately likely to be a child with an unidentified or under-served reading disability — and middle schools are typically the thinnest place in the system for reading intervention: fewer trained staff, fewer intervention blocks, more shame attached to needing help.
What should you do if your struggling reader is past third grade?
- Reject the expiration-date myth. Structured literacy works for older students too — intervention research shows gains well beyond the "window" people cite. Later start means more catch-up, not no catch-up.
- Request evaluation now, in writing. Identification rates drop sharply after elementary school not because dyslexia disappears but because nobody is looking. A dated letter starts the clock — the template is in our parent toolbox.
- Demand actual intervention, not "support." Middle schools often offer homework help or a study hall where a reading program should be. Ask what program, what training, how many minutes weekly — the same six provider questions apply at 13 as at 7.
- Protect access while skills build. Audiobooks and text-to-speech keep a struggling decoder learning grade-level content — accommodation and intervention are partners, not rivals.
What shouldn't you conclude from national scores?
- "The reading crisis is over." One cohort's partial recovery is progress, not victory — and 13-year-olds' scores argue loudly against relaxing.
- "My fourth grader is fine because fourth graders improved." National averages say nothing about one child. If you see the signs, the average is irrelevant.
- "Teens who read poorly missed their chance." The data shows a system that stopped teaching reading after elementary school — an argument for extending intervention upward, not writing students off.
Frequently asked questions
What is the NAEP long-term trend assessment? It's a national reading and math assessment given periodically since the 1970s, kept deliberately consistent so performance can be compared across decades. The 2024–25 administration tested about 15,000 age-9 students and 16,400 age-13 students, with results released in June 2026.
Is it too late for a middle schooler to get help with dyslexia? No. Structured-literacy intervention produces gains in older students; they simply have more ground to cover, which argues for starting immediately. Evaluation rights under federal law apply at every grade, and accommodations can keep learning on track while skills build.
Why are younger students improving? Analysts point to a combination of less pandemic disruption and five years of state laws retraining elementary teachers in evidence-based reading instruction. The gains were strongest among lower-performing 9-year-olds — the group early screening and explicit instruction are designed to reach.